12487Re: [mythsoc] Newest Greenman Review
- Jul 7, 2004At 08:52 AM 7/7/2004 -0400, Wayne G. Hammond wrote:
>The latest edition of Tyler's book is,Unfortunately, what Tyler says and what Tyler does are two different
>however, of at least intellectual interest for its use (such as it is) of
>Tolkien sources later than _The Silmarillion_, and for Tyler's abandoning
>of his previous conceit that the Red Book of Westmarch, etc. were "real".
things. From my own review of the new edition (Mythprint, December 2003):
"A reliable source but a very poor second choice to Robert Foster's
_Complete Guide to Middle-earth_ (less detail, more omissions, few dates,
hardly any page references), Tyler's tome now includes entries from
_Unfinished Tales_, 24 years after that book was published. It ignores
almost everything else since then, whether it fits into the (illusory)
"final" legendarium or not. Tyler claims he's dropped his pretence that
Middle-earth is real, but entries like that for Orcs, identifying them as
the true origin of mythic goblins, show that he hasn't."
>Is Robert Tilendis not aware that Ruth Noel's _Languages of Middle-earth_I found Tilendis's review excusable. He neither claims expertise on the
>is utterly notorious for the number of its errors? Has he never seen it
>called "the little red horror"?
subject nor pretends to expertise he doesn't have. Yet he is wise enough
to detect a certain odor of unreliability in Noel's book. Though I suppose
if you're going to review a 25-year-old treatise it might be a good idea to
check up on what previous scholarly reviewers have had to say before
publishing your own thoughts.
More puzzling was Tilendis whining about how boring the scholarly apparatus
was. And Jack Merry, reviewer of Swann's _The Road Goes Ever On_, is bored
by sheet music. Spare me from the easily bored, or at least spare me from
reviews about how easily bored they get.
>And then there is Wes Unruh's review of _J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist andCertainly not. Unruh says, "I would have preferred a chronological order
>Illustrator_, which he cannot have read too carefully.
that his creative process might be more easily inferred." I am astonished
by the implication that A&I has anything other than a chronological basis
within the various threads of Tolkien's visual imagination. Unruh also
calls it an "incomplete survey," and at the word "incomplete" I give up.
As a survey, "incomplete" is the last word for it. It was never intended
or advertised as "The Complete Artwork of J.R.R. Tolkien," and by any other
standards the book is comprehensively inclusive almost to a fault.
Again I'd like to quote from my own review, at
"This magnificent volume is a full, detailed, and definitive study of
Tolkien's artwork in all its manifestations ... About three-quarters of
Tolkien's artwork in _Pictures_ is reproduced in this book, usually smaller
in size but often more clearly and usually in better color. The overlap,
and the exclusions, are designed to enable this book to cover Tolkien's art
thoroughly and completely without rendering _Pictures_ superfluous. ... A
few early drafts of particular scenes from _Pictures_ are not included
here, but this book makes up for that by including other previously
unpublished drafts of the same scenes. ... Few authors are fortunate
enough to have their works served so well."
- David Bratman
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>